Soft Power is Obama's Greatest Strength

The recent commemorations of the First World War conjured up some wishful thinking for me. Taking in pictures of soldiers in black and white, watching grainy footage of clunky low tech tanks, it was easy to imagine that war was somehow part of the 20th century - a mode of aggression now on its last legs. Yesterday's fake edition of the New York Times, heralding the end of the Iraq War, confirmed I was not the only one yearning.

But war is not over and worse, there is no evidence yet that bellicosity is out of favour. Obama wants to finish - not stop - the war against Al Quaeda and the Taliban, describing his stance as "tough, smart and principled". He has warned Pakistan that he will come and get the terrorists they are harbouring and pointedly refused to respond to Iran's over enthusiastic welcome to his victory.

Even so, I know I'm not alone in thinking that Obama's election has opened the door to a softer way of being powerful in the world. Maybe because Obama chose not to respond to McCain's bully tactics with stronger ripostes, but took them in his stride and focussed on the future. Or maybe because, at every stage of his long journey to the White House, he has challenged our easy polarisation of cultures, politics and choices: seeking instead to find common ground between all Americans "who long for lives of peace". Or maybe because he has a gentle voice, a loving look and counts dancing as a Presidential qualification.

He appears to have what Congressman Dennis Kucinich would describe as the 'capacity for peace'. At the same moment that Obama was in a stadium with Bruce Springsteen in that last push for Cleveland Ohio, I joined Cleveland Representative Kucinich in a fund raiser with British comedian Eddie Izzard in a nearby venue. Well before Obama began to make speeches against the war in Iraq Kucinich had been publicly insisting that there was no evidence of WMD there and hence no proof of aggressive intent: he was the only one of this year's Democratic Presidential candidates who voted against the war in 2002.

But much as he appreciates Obama's capacity, Kucinich knows the President can't act alone:

"People think that Obama will do the work for them, but the truth is that nothing changes until the people themselves develop the capacity for peace internally: only then will it arrive... Few people realise that peace is not a passive thing but it is also not a doing thing: it is the presence of a capacity for compassion, empathy, awareness of how we are all vitally linked to one another. We have capitulated to the culture of violence because we doubt our capacity to evolve beyond it."

In other words, we don't think we can survive by being peaceful.

Does that explain why, despite being described by so many as the 'soft power' candidate in the recent elections, Obama's campaign never used the term themselves, wary no doubt of the fear it could induce? This from Galen Fox, former Hawaii State House Republican Leader:

"The term "soft power" has to be one of politics' great self-inflicted wounds. It's supposed to mean something better than Bush's over-reliance on force, but the words actually suggest appeasement in the face of terrorists, nuclear bomb-waving Iranians, and other threats to peace"

. In May this year, American Prospect said this:

"But despite its timeliness, its ability to accurately describe the world in which we live, and its natural liberal appeal, Soft Power has a catastrophic flaw. It is horribly named. In fact, one would be hard pressed to find a term that more effectively plays into all the negative stereotypes that the American public has about Democrats and national security."

Are we caught in a trap of our own making? Loving the less aggressive stance of Obama over McCain, yet afraid to use the power his way of being offers? Didn't he just win the vote of not just the US electorate but the world by offering to sit down to talks with Iran's President Ahmadinejad and to end the war in Iraq? Joseph Nye - who first coined the phrase - himself overcame the semantic problem by creating a partnership between soft and hard power now called Smart Power. Obama seized on that - see above - but it will not help him in the future, to uphold the belief that non-violence is a weak option.

Perhaps all that is needed is a good role model for soft power: someone who seeks to engage rather than stand off, capable of dialogue not just debate. Who is looking for transformation - scene-changing results - rather than a win over losers. Who has profound empathy, but is centred enough to hold to his own principles in negotiation.

I think we have that man in Obama: let's hope not just for the change that he is, but for the change that he inspires in us. Unless activists and supporters - we, the media - can create a climate in which Obama's naturally peaceful ways can flourish, there will be a limit to how much change he can bring.

Comments

[EddyDC]

The All-Party Parliamentary Group on Conflict Issues held a meeting in Westminster a week after Obama's victory and the general feeling was that he would probably disappoint quite a large section of his more starry-eyed supporters when it came to conflict policy. To me he is much in the style of Jack Kennedy, who gave the world the Bay of Pigs and deepening US involvement in Vietnam. Will Obama do likewise in Afghanistan, where he has already pledged to commit another 20,000 US troops? Do liberal US presidents have to act tough abroad to convince the swing voters at home that they can be trusted on 'security' matters?

Watch this space...

[Teohna]

I agree with much of what you write. The crucial question is whether WE are ready and willing to take the responsibility that is ours to reach a critical mass that will lead to a significant change. It is easy for us to look to Obama and put our trust and hope in him. But this is clearly not enough. Of course, this does not take away the very urgent need for a leader such as Obama, but we need to support each other to recognise how to foster a paradigm shift within our own lives.

[Indra Adnan - Huffpost Blogger]

Much as I like your ideas, I'm not sure that Obama could, or should, take the route of humbling the US. l prefer to see it as an opportunity to present a developed US, that is capable of more complexity in its dealings with global conflict than before. Too much pendulum swinging would be buying into the persistent dualities of the past - right to left, evil to good, lose to win - whereas Obama's strength till now has been in what Nye calls transformational leadership.

If he wants to transcend past differences, he will have to include the hawks as well as the doves in a new narrative of America's place in the world as a global leader. Why not compete with China for the mantle of soft power champion?

[dharyati]

Obama reminds me of my father. He could understand(not agree) equally the Nazi movement as he could Bhuddism and the Dalai Lama. Tolerance and understanding , and a table around which we can discuss our problems and find the solutions is what we need. Using force only results in a lot of people dying.

[Indra Adnan - Huffpost Blogger]

Sounds like you had an unusually capacious father. I wish that it all seemed so straightforward - at least as a starting point - to more people. For example, I have never understood why so many of us find the term collateral damage - the accidental murder of thousands of civilians in the course of military operations - acceptable.

On the other hand, I am not sure I believe in table'ism either - as peace Professor Johan Galtung used to call it. That is the bringing together of people around a table as fast as possible and at any cost, hoping that they can sort out their deep troubles. Conflict transformation requires patient and committed engagement with individuals and groups before they get anywhere near a table to face each other. Skilled mediators helping them to find their voice, express their reasonable needs and drop their meta issues. Premature gathering together too often leads to aggressive compromise, storing up troubles for the future.

[MonGonzalez]

Indra, I don´t think we have to be afraid of Obama not showing his peaceful way... He has already done it...and how?!!!!!! Amazing...

On Wednesday 5th Lluís Basset published an article in the main Spanish newspaper EL País in which he said that: "The best thing Obama can offer is Obama himself, the stregth of his personality, his oratory, his character, that way of being which has been praised even by his opponents and a special ego, transparent, that doesn't experience anguish in its relation with power. In summary, an anti-Sarkozy, that knows how to work as a team and address with naturalness his citizens."

In describing Obama, Basset has given one of the most wonderful definitions of soft power I have ever read (I hope Mr. Nye can forgive my boldness)...

Obama will do a lot...don´t forget he had a very special mother, who died 13 years ago, on the 7 of November of 1995 and who insuflated in him a lot of warrior-like feminine strength and a lot of spiritual awareness, of which Obama himself may not be aware yet, but an spiritual awaress that has already struck many sensible souls upon planet earth...

Mon

[Indra Adnan - Huffpost Blogger]

Mon, What is the warrior like feminine strength you mention? Can you describe it some more? Is it found more in women than in men? Is it soft?

[patkane]

Indra, I think you're right to emphasize that Obama needs a loud activist community around him, to legitimate his peace-making tendencies - and the more that the "ten million e-mails" make their idealism known to him, the less likely he is to fall into any semblance of the "Washington Consensus". But Jake is also right to say that must involve specific challenges - not just closing Guantanamo, but the beginnings of a moral and ethical reckoning with the darker aspects of spreading American democracy in the 20th century. The 'turning the supertanker' metaphor is never more appropriate than here - and as well as any vision at the helm, we (meaning those who see Obama as a possibility rather than a new face on the old system) have to be the tide that helps the change in direction.

[Indra Adnan - Huffpost Blogger]

My worry is that I think the activists will back Obama up whatever he does - this is what happened to Tony Blair who had a comparable personal following. In addition, those who voted for McCain, still almost half the electorate, will continue to put pressure on the new President to be hard in the face of conflict.

But the distrust and fear around soft power can be challenged at all levels of society by both women and men, not only on the national stage but in their domestic and community spaces too.
For those who have learnt the skills of non-violence, there is nothing more effective than being able to turn aggression round, or find ways to engage with those completely disconnected by their anger.

The power of attraction - Jo Nye's descripton of soft power -on the other hand, can refer as much to an individual taking on "being the change they wish to see" (Gandhi) as a nation exporting its values through consumer goods and the arts.

Soft power is still power, just by other means than hard power. It is not soft powerlessness we are talking about here.

[JakeLynch]

For Obama to lead an Administration with some respect for international law and human rights would be a start. Then: apologise to Iran for the CIA's role in ousting the Mossadegh government in 1953, which ushered in the repressive rule of the Shah. Use that as the launchpad for dialogue over a nuclear-weapons-free world, as envisaged in the Non-Proliferation Treaty.
Tell Israel to do what every honest Israeli politician knows is necessary (and was foreshadowed in the valedictory speech by Ehud Olmert) - agree a two-state solution with the Palestinians based on the pre-1967 Green Line. Or lose US support.
As far as Afghanistan is concerned - there may be an outside power capable of actually helping that unfortunate country to build a better future, but, given everything that has happened, IT IS NOT THE US. Leave the Germans to their successful nation-building in safer areas, and Karzai to his peace overtures to the Taliban.
Implicit in all of this is, I guess, a principle of soft power. The world sees the US as a tarnished brand, responsible for large and egregious wrongs. We need some evidence that you really are sorry, and that means strong signs that you are willing to change your ways. There will be resistance from the 'military-industrial complex', but hey - do the obvious thing, cut their budget and spend the money on new forms and applications of energy instead.